Description: The MBTA seeks a qualified Contractor to overhaul ten (10) F40PH-2C/F40PHM-2C locomotives. The Contract allows for the option to twenty-six (26) additional locomotives to be overhauled. The designated locomotives shall be overhauled/remanufactured in accordance with the requirements detailed in Technical Specification No. LO17-0013 (also referred to in this document as "the Technical Specifications"), To assist the MBTA in this effort, the Authority is issuing this Request for Proposal ("RFP") to solicit responses from qualified firms or individuals who can meet the project requirements stated herein, in strict accordance with MBTA Specifications.
Pre-Bid Meeting: 11/29/2016
Bids Due: 12/13/2016
The MBTA has requested bids to overhaul 10 F40PH-2C/F40PHM-2C locomotives with an option to overhaul 26 additional locomotives (36 total). The overhaul is expected to extend the service life by 10 years minimum without future component overhauls, and 20 years maximum with future component overhauls, but units will not be considered remanufactured. Proposals are due 12/13/2016
BandA wrote:CTDot had a proposal for major overhaul of some of their diesel engines several months ago. How does the process & specs compare? Certainly it is kind of a pain to obtain bid documents from the MBTA website (you have to register, download each part separately) for what are public documents that should be freely available. Also, they give preferences to protected classes aka "disadvantaged" business enterprises. I would want the work done by the most qualified contractor, not the most disadvantaged or fake-disadvantaged contractor.
I read the CT documents a while ago and was impressed with the level of detail and that they were essentially remanufacturing the engines.
mxdata wrote:I read the RFP and it certainly has its conflicts. They want to get the units repaired and back into service in ten months each, but at the same time they throw in a requirement for a new microprocessor control system and a complete rewire. This in a fleet of units where the Dash-2 control system has not been that much of a problem.
The addendum shows the number of units out of service for bearing or crankshaft failures. Those could be addressed immediately with engine changes, and possibly main generator changes at the same time, and get them back into service in much less that the ten months specified in the RFP.
F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:It was always dubious whether MPI's traumatic experience with HSP-46 design-build would scare them away from doing any subsequent orders. Especially since it now looks like interest in that make is virtually nil from other buyers, and sinking so much bandwidth into designing the GE platform on the HSP design may have killed future sales of their MPXpress cash cow by letting Siemens beat them to market with a mass-produced Tier 4 engine. The MP36PH/MP40PH, after 15 years of being the best-selling passenger make, are pretty much screwed forever because they're so overweight in current incarnation and tardy on next-generation design that the only Tier 4 retrofit MPI has been able to hack together with them is that hella weird genset unicorn that GO Transit is inexplicably and bafflingly ordering. They're retreating to Tier 4 retrofits of their more lurcrative freight lineup and probably can't be begged to produce more passenger units, leaving the T in a place where it may not be able to follow through on its fleet plan for unifying under the GE GEVO platform. It now could be fragmentation forever with half-GE roster and a bunch of EMD's and future Siemens-Cummins makes needing to fill out the rest.
diburning wrote:Word through the grapevine is that Kinki Sharyo (located in Piscataway, NJ) placed a bid, and they're very confident that they will win.
BandA wrote:So wiring hasn't contributed to the lack of reliability.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests